Question

11. What is an example, either by name or by description, of a Supreme Court ruling that critics regarded as “judicial activism,” and what was it about the ruling that put it in that category according to critics? Your answer should include a clear sense of what such critics wish that the Supreme Court would do instead.

Answer 1

Answer:

As to simple words, judicial activism refers to the theory that suggests that if the words of a statute or a law are not enough to derive a conclusion then the courts should move beyond the literal construction and consider the implications of its decisions on the society i.e. they need to understand the intent of the legislature and not just stuck to the literal meaning of the legislature. It is their philosophy where the courts, in their decision making process, consider their personal views about a certain policy. It used be quite debatable because many theorists believed it to be damaging the laws of the democracy whereas the ones who support it claims that the judicial activism should be there because the interpretation needs to change with the evolving times.

One of the examples of judicial activism is the case Hollingsworth v. Perry which legalized same-sex marriage in the California. It states that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law and thus the decision under this case overturn the initiative which had banned the same-sex marriage.